- Tytuł:
- Ars musica w krakowskich traktatach muzycznych XVI wieku
- Autorzy:
- Witkowska-Zaremba, Elżbieta
- Powiązania:
-
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/books/1788306.zip
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/books/1788306.pdf
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/books/1788306.mobi
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/books/1788306.epub - Data publikacji:
- 1986
- Wydawca:
- Polskie Wydawnictwo Muzyczne
- Opis:
- The Cracow Plainsong Treatises of the first half of the 16th century represent a virtually unknown though very important part of Polish musical literature in the period. They are the only texts of their time which, in addition to their precepts on the practice of music, also provide answers to such basic questions as: What is music? What makes a musician? What is the subject of the study of music? What is the derivation and what is the purpose of music? The answers to these questions formulated in the plainsong treatises established some of the foundations of musical knowledge about music and went some way towards shaping a common view of its nature and function. The primary sources for the reconstruction of this view are as follows: 1. Stefan Monetarius Epitoma utriusque musices. Cracow, Fl. Ungler 1515. Liber primus (de musica chorali). 2. Sebastian of Felsztyn Opusculum musicae compilatum noviter. Cracow, J. Haller 1517 (referred to as Sebastian of Felsztyn I). 3. Sebastian of Felsztyn Opusculum musicae noviter congestum. Cracow, Fl. Ungler, 1524-25, H. Victor, 1534 and 1536 (referred to as Sebastian of Felsztyn II). 4. Marek of Płock Hortulus musices. 1517-1518, ms. Bibl. of the Bernardines of Poznan. 5. Marcin Kromer Musicae elementa. H. Vietor 1532. 6. Anonymous plainsong treatise from the Ossolineum Library, ms. 2297/I of the first half of the 16th century (referred to as Anonym Ossol. 2297/I). 7. Anonymous plainsong treatise from the Jagiellonian Library, ms. 2616, from the first quarter of the 16th century (referred to as Anonym BJ 2616). The term “plainsong treatise” indicates that liturgical music, in this case Gregorian chant, is the subject to which the Cracow treatises are devoted. Their purpose within the system of music instruction that prevailed at the time may be compared to the function performed by liturgical music in creative composition in Latin Europe up to and including the 16th century: just as the plainchant melodies, or those modelled upon liturgical sources, were used in the “cantus firmus” form as the basis of polyphonic compositions, so the theoretical principles of plainsong elucidated in the plainsong treatises constituted the foundation of musical knowledge. It may therefore be said that the plainsong treatises were in fact textbooks devoted to the fundamental principles of music, a presentation of “rudimenta artis musicae”. The statement that “musica plana” is “fundamentum musicae mensuralis” appears in theoretical texts from the 13th to the 16th century. The implication is therefore that not only did “musica plana” form the foundation of mensural music but that knowledge in the area was of great importance because, together with “musica mensuralis”, it formed the practical aspect of instruction in music, called “musica practica”. The musical scale, the intervals and the church modes, that is melic elements, were expounded within the framework of “musica plana”, as were elements of musical notation concerning pitch or the relationships between notes: the key system and the principles of diastematic notation. The main didactic purpose of the “musica plana” textbooks was to train singers who would perform “cantus choralis” correctly. The textbooks therefore concentrated on solmization, a method designed to develop practical mastery of musical intervals considered the basis of' “ars canendi”. But questions of “musica plana” alone did not exhaust the problems taken up by the plainsong treatises. Since they were primers by desingn, the treatises also offered general information on music: the definition and classification of music, the etymological derivation of the term “musica”, information about the “inventors” of music and an explanation of the distinction made between “musicus” and “cantor”. The volumes often opened with a panegyric on music in verse form — “laudes musicae”, “encomia musicae” etc. — that spoke of the power and the usefulness of “ars musica”. These questions were sometimes treated as a subject of music theory. The material of the plainsong treatises was therefore extended to include “musica theorica” — a branch of music whose main purpose was cognitive and not “musica practica” as in the case of “musica plana”. Although in the first half of the 16th century information on “musica theorica” was frequently included in the plainsong treatises, it was not yet common practice. The information was at times confined to the definition and classification of music. At other times it was completely left out. The Cracow authors, however, considered theory an integral part of the “musica plana” handbook. The sum of knowledge contained in the plainsong treatises covered two groups of problems. The first, general problems (generalia), was an introduction to methodology and aesthetics. The second group touched on problems of “ars canendi”; these were detailed (singularia) questions concerning only one branch of musical instruction, notably “musica plana”. A striking feature of the treatises written by the Cracow theorists is the use and the definition of musical terms. The ambiguity of the terms arises not only from the fact that one term was used in several different and alternative meanings but also because the meanings ascribed to one term were ostensibly derived one from the other and consequently came to represent a broad but vaguely outlined concept. Because of the ambiguity or rather ambivalence regarding its meaning, a single term can be given different and at times radically contradictory interpretations. On the other hand, because of the broad range of interpretations the ambiguous or “elastic” terms may be treated as keys that open the door to a conceptual system where they perform the role of a binding agent that ties the separate elements togetner. One such term is “ars”. The different meanings of the term arise, it seems, from the relationship in which “ars” is placed to its opposite, “nature”. The term “ars” may be taken to mean “the study and the discovery of nature”. Thus defined “ars” is equivalent to the consciousness of nature which is acquired with the discovery of its laws. The proponent of this meaning of “ars” is Pythagoras, “inventor musica apud Graecos”, “princeps numerorum”, and “investigator proportionum”, its subject being “numerum sonorum”. That explains why “musica artificialis” could stand for the science “de numero sonoro”. The discovery of the laws of nature enables us to imitate it: “musica artificialis”, the branch of learning devoted to “numerum sonorum”, is at the same time “debita modulandi scientia”: the study of ”sonant numbers” is conducted “propter melodiam constituendam”. Standards of procedure may be formulated on the basis of the discovered laws of nature. “Ars liberalis” provides the foundation for the formulation of the “ars canendi” principles. “Ars” may therefore be designated “collectio praeceptorum”: it is “ars docens” derived from “ars” which “quaesivit et invenit”, and as such is equivalent to “scientia”. “Ars” as “collectio praeceptorum” is “ars scientiae”. That is why “musica artificialis/regularis” may also be designated as a collection of standards that regulate music or as music regulated by standards. The two concepts of “ars”, seemingly poles apart, in that one was conceived as a study of nature while the other was regarded as a set of standards that regulate human activity, form the dichotomy “theorica — practica” that permeates virtually every aspect of the “generalia”. Since the concepts exist side by side, the terms “ars” and “scientia” are used interchangeably in the definition of musical terms. The two terms are conjoined by the concept “musicus adaequatus”, the ideal musician who combines theoretical knowledge with practical skills. “Ars” may finally be superior to “nature”: a musician equipped with “ars” stands above the “cantor” who is guided solely by his “naturali quodam sensu”. As may be proved by the examples illustrating “effectus musicae”, the discovery of the laws of nature enables us to manipulate it: Pythagoras, “princeps numerorum” — could induce and shake off sleep through music. “Ars” can even vanquish “nature”. Orpheus, “inventor huius artis apud gentiles”, “musicae expertissimus”, triumphed over death and vanquished nature when, thanks to his music, he rescued Euridice from Hades. Intended “in laudem Dei” music makes mortals immortal, converts sinners into saints, people into angels; while still remaining “scientia” it lays claim to the title “ars pulcherrima”. The instrument of “ars canendi”, as explained within the framework of “singularia”, is “vox”. The term could signify “instrumentum naturale”, i.e. “vox humana”, as well as a solmizational syllable. The Cracow theorists began the exposition of the principles of “ars canendi” by explaining the term “vox”. According to their explanation, the solmizational syllables seem to be derived from “instrumentum naturale” so that the distinction between the two meanings of the term “vox” was obscured. It seems that “genus diatonicum”, recognized as the most natural for the human voice formed the link between these two meanings. The hexachord, composed of voces ut-re-mi-fa-sol-la which combine all three groups of diatonic fourths, is an exponent of the diatonic scale. A similar relationship is found between the two meanings applied to the term “cantus”: “cantus” as “modulatio vocis” and “cantus” as “hexachordum”. “Voces”, when arranged in hexachords and superimposed on the “model” scale Γ-ee, revealed their interval structure. They transformed the abstract “litterae” into “claves” — keys that opened up the “nature” of singing. By adding hexachords from g, c, f beyond the extreme tones 1' and ee, that form the framework of the “model” scale, the “clavium” scale could be extended at will while preserving the interval structure. By transposing the hexachords to any optional tone scale, the “clavium” scale could be transposed with its “naturalis disposition” preserved, as required by the rules governing tone transposition (scala ficta), or “condensed” with new semitones. The “condensation”, achieved by introducing “voces fictas”, transformed “genus diatonicum” into “genus chromaticum” understood as “diatonicae progressionis condensatio”. The essence of thinking in terms of hexachords may be seen to lie in the “generative” function of the hexachord. Because of its role in revealing the interval structure, “voces” was regarded as “intervali nomenclatura”. The principles governing the use of “voces”, the basis of “ars canendi”, meant that the proportions studied by “speculativa” music remained inviolate. “Voces” constituted the final link in the transformation of abstract numerical proportions into real tones remaining at specific distances from each other measured with the aid of “modus”. “Modus”, the next term with many connotations, referred to “mensura localis” and “temporalis” alike, as if linking through numerical proportions, “in quibus modi fundantur”, the two branches of “ars canendi” — “musica plana” and “musica mensuralis” — with “ars, cuius subiectum est numerus sonorum”. Within the framework of “musica plana”, “modus” represented the “ascensus” and “descensus” — “arsis” and “thesis” — designating a single interval or a specific arrangement of intervals which formed “systema toni”; in the second meaning “modus” was e qual to the octave species. In both cases “modus” was given a virtually identical etymological derivation. According to the “repercussionis” concept, “modus” could also constitute the identification quality of a tone. In the “quantitatis” category, “modus” is modified as “modus peculiaris” into the “qualitatis” category: it becomes a specific melody recognizable by the tone and as such enters the sphere of specific expressive properties of which “tonus” is the exponent. “Tonus” could affect the human psyche through its ascribed attributes of expression. The ”causa finalis” of music was therefore attained through the agency of tone defined as “finis et principium artis musicae”: in accord with its “utilitas”, music was capable of influencing human emotions and, by the same token, man’s inner harmony. The plainsong treatises of the first half of the 16th century contain no exposition on the subject of direct relationships between the expressive qualities of tone and man’s inner harmonycovered by the term “musica humana”. To show these relationships, it is necessary to examine more extensive texts such as the anonymous treatise marked BJ 1927 and Musica practica by Ramos de Pareja. Anonym BJ 1927 posed the following question in the title of the chapter on the expressive properies of tones (quoted earlier): “How do people of different complexions (temperaments) become fond of various Modes?” In his reply, based on the views of Boethius and Guido of Arezzo, the author states that musical preferences are linked not only with the region in which the given people live (the peoples of the East delight “in levioribus modis et quasi femineijs cantibus” while the western nations — in “nec nimis asperis nec nimis levibus modulationibus”) but also with the innate “qualitas vel complexio” (one, in accord with his temperament, seeks tenderness and gaiety in singing, another — dignity and solemnity, etc.) Anonim BJ 1927, k. 236r-236v: „...sciendum, quod sicut diverse sunt gentes, ita etiam utuntur modis et varijs cantibus seu cantilenis delectantur. Omnes nempe origentales gentes quasi levioribus modis et quasi femineis cantibus gaudere noscuntur. Occidentales vero asperis et fractis cantilenae saltibus vescuntur, mediterranae autem gentes nec nimis asperis nec nimis levibus modulationibus oblectantur, sed quadam modulatione habita ex utraque parte temperatum cantum efficiunt, nec femineas resonant blanditias nec barbaricis vexantur asperitatibus. Non solum autem tam diverse gentes sed etiam unius gentis homines pro insita sibi qualitate vel complexione variis pascuntur modulationibus. Unus enim in cantu nil aliud nisi mollitiem et lasciviam iuxta habitudinem suae mentis descenderat. Alius gravibus tantum et sobriis cantibus demulcetur. Alius vero, ut amens, incomptis vexationibus pascitur et iste gravibus, ille vero acutis discurrere gaudet”. . Ramos de Pareja also cites the opinion of Boethius when he argues in the chapter “in quo musicae mundanae, humanae ac instrumentalis per tonos conformitas ostenditur” that the four modes — protus, deuterus, tritus and tetrardus — correspond to the four human temperaments: phlegmatic, choleric, sanguine and melancholic. Furthermore authentic tones stimulate the emotions typifying a given temperament and the plagal tones by contrast have a soothing effect on these emotions. The Pythagoreans, who were familiar with this rule and who knew that the whole structure of our soul and body rests upon musical harmony, had the ability to use music for therapeutic purposes' Bartholomé Ramos de Pareja Musica practica. Bononiae 1482, p. 43-44. . In Cracow this view was propagated by Jerzy Liban of Legnica although he did not classify music according to the Boethian categories Jerzy Liban De musicae laudibus oratio. Cracoviae 1540; k. E2v-F2r. . The Cracow authors defined “musica humana” not only as an inner harmony but also as actual musical sounds produced by the “vox humana”. In Sebastian of Felsztyn the two meanings of the term are still kept separate. In other texts, however, there are indications of a tentative link between the two meanings, so that we might view the term “musica humana” as in some senses uniting “vox” and “tonus” — the ultimate question of “musica plana”. According to the definition quoted by Sebastian of Felsztyn (II) and modelled on the formulas applied by Wollick, Adam of Fulda and Anonym BJ 568, “musica humana” would be a “passive state”: an inner harmony subject to the effects of “musica sonora”. But according to the concept “musica humana/vox”, professed by Anonym Bartha and the concept “musica harmonica” presented by Anonym BJ 1927 and Gaffurius, that inner harmony may manifest itself in action: it can become sonant harmony, externalized and produced through the “vox”. “Per vocem”, Anonym Bartha states, “anima est agens”. Anonym BJ 1927 and Gaffurius derived “harmonica” music from “harmony” created by “corpus humanum” as a system of different instruments and elements of the inner harmony externalized in an appropriate manner by “vocis modulatio”: “Hec enim [sc. harmonia], Anonym BJ 1927 and Gaffurius maintain, “ex animo et corpore motum facit, ex motum sonum, ex sono verbum et modulationem”. We may say consequently that “musica humana, quae vocem humanam requirit” would be the embodiment of the inner harmony, “a harmony in action”; when the harmony assumes the shape of a melody it affects “musica humana”, “quae in corpore et anima est situata”. “For as the melody runs on”, Sebastian of Felsztyn repeats after Wollick, “a person feels refreshed and invigorated and whereas he takes the greatest pleasure in the consonance of modulations so he recoils when anything on that harmony is spoiled.” The system of concepts outlined above marks the main points of the framework around which the Cracow plainsong treatises of the first half of the 16th century were built. The extent to which this framework is brought to bear on the individual treatised depends very much upon the models, that is the sources, from which the Cracow authors took the material they compiled in their works. The Cracow theorists remained within the sphere of orientation that was dominant in Latin Europe at the time, an orientation linked with the names of two leading theorists of the late 15th century and the early 16th century, Adam of Fulda and Franchin Gaffurius. The concepts of Adam of Fulda reached Cracow through the agency of theorists of the Cologne school. However, one cannot exclude direct knowledge of the treatise of Adam of Fulda in every case: certain fragments of the texts, most notably of Anonym BJ 2616, would strongly indicate that the author had access to the original. The Cologne school of theorists, whose treatises, by all indications, the Cracow theorists made use of, were above all: Nicolaus Wollick (Opus aureum), Udalricus Burchard (Hortulus musicae) and Andreas Omitoparchus (Micrologus musicae activae). Sebastian of Felsztyn made greatest use of them, especially in his Opusculum musices noviter congestum. The treatise may be assumed to be a version of Opusculum musicae compilatum updated by borrowing from the latest developments in the teaching of “musica plana”. Contacts between the Cracow theorists and the Cologne school are known to have existed as early as the second decade of the 16th century. Monetarius and quite possibly Marek of Plock had access to the treatises of Cochlaeus and Burchard. This fact would testify to a lively interchange between Cologne and Cracow, considering that Epitoma by Monetarius appeared, as generally accepted, in 1515, and hence a year after the publication of Burchard’s Hortulus musicae, while the treatise of the same title by Marek of Plock was issued less than four years later. Wollick’s Opus aureum was known in 1517 at the latest, that is the year of publication of Opusculum musicae compilatum noviter by Sebastian of Felsztyn. Micrologus by Omitoparch, published for the first time in 1517, was known in Cracow prior to 1524, the year of the first printing of Opusculum musices noviter congestum, and so 15 years earlier than A. Chybinski believed. We may now identity those solutions to the questions taken up by the Cracow treatises which are based on the Cologne formulas. The beginnings of the Cologne school and its activity are linked with the person of Nicolaus Wollick, who, as K.-W. Niemöller demonstrates, propagated and developed the concepts of Adam of Fulda K.W. Niemöller Nicolaus Wollick (1480 1541) und sein Musiktraktat. „Beiträge zur Rheinischen Musikegschichte” Heft 13, Köln 1956, s. 276. . Wollick’s concept of separating “musica naturalis” from the subject of music and of concentrating solely on “musica artificialis” lay at the foundations of that school’s contribution. Wollick’s successors, Cochlaeus and Burchard, by replacing the division “musica naturalis — artificialis” by the division “musica theorica — practica”, where only “practica” is subject to further classification, proved that they considered „praxis” Jw., s. 259. the central problem of the science of music. The accent placed on “musica practica” contributed to the new attitude to the distinction “musicus — cantor” by raising the “cantor” to the rank of “musicus practicus”; the former meaning of that distinction was transferred to the division “musica usualis — regulata”, known to be a characteristic feature of the Cologne classification of music Jw., s. 260 i 281. . All the elements of that view may be found in the Cracow treatises. The division into “musica non sonora” and “sonora” and concentration on the last are a feature of nearly all the Cracow classification of music. Two of the Cracow classification frameworks are exact replicas of the classifications presented by Cochlaeus and Burchard. Stefan Monetarius took the same position as Cochlaeus on the question of “musicus — cantor”. The Cologne formulas are also evident in the area of the “singularia”. The proof lies in the exposition of the subject and the borrowings, most pronounced in the treatises of Marek of Plock and Sebastian of Felsztyn. However, individual questions are resolved in accord with widely accepted standards. Fewer references were made in Cracow to the treatises of Gaffurius. Credit for access to his Practica musicae is attributed to Monetarius, Jerzy Liban of Legnica and the anonymous author of the treatise Ad faciendum cantum coralem from the Tablature of Jan of Lublin. The fourth Cracow theorist to make wide use of the work of Gaffurius was Anonym BJ 2616; he borrowed not only from Practica but also from Theorica. The relation between Practica musicae and Epitoma by Monetarius is well known. Except for a few solutions in the “generalia” (such as the classification of music) and the exposition on the subject of the intervals, virtually the whole of Epitoma is inspired by the views set forth by Gaffurius. It is quite likely that Monetarius quoted Tinctoris and Giorgio Anselm after Gaffurius. The most important concept taken from Gaffurius is the idea of the unity of theory and practice expressed through the term “musicus adaequatus”, which Anonym BJ 2616 introduced in his treatise, and the commentary to the definition “actionis musices” quoted by Monetarius which argues persuasively that the actions of “rationis” and “scientiae” are futile if they are not supported by practice. The fact that Monetarius associated this commentary with the position taken by Cochlaeus on the question of “musicus — cantor” suggests that some of the concepts attributed to the Cologne school were in fact a reflection of a general tendency. The other “Gaffurian elements” that appeared in the Cracow treatises were the division “vox”, the exposition on proportions quoted by Anonym BJ 2616 and the treatment of the problems of the hexachord system presented by Monetarius such as “proprietas”, mutation, “musica ficta” the last of which, placed in the categories of “chromatici generis”, seems especially important; Monetarius also followed Gaffurius in his tonal classification of melodies. Anonym Ossol. 2297/I holds a singular position among the seven treatises that were analysed here. It is the only one that reveals clear ties with the formula used by the preceding generation of Cracow theorists. There is a similarity between “versus” related to “inventores musicae” and the treatment of the problem of conjunct motion given by the treatise and the exposition of Szydlowita, Anonym BJ 1927 and Anonym BJ 1859; the authors of these texts must have made use of the Opusculum monocordale by Johannes Valendrin (Hollandrin). Szydłowita’s Muzyka and the Anonym Ossol. 2297/I both give a description in verse form of the expressive properties of church tones and an exposition on “vox simplex” and “vox composita”: these elements are independent of Opusculum monocordale. The Ossol. 2297/I treatise reveals a convergence with the anonymous commentary to Opusculum monocordale indicating an unknown “second source” rather than borrowings; the division of musica in both texts into “usualis” and “artificialis” implies that “die Besonderheit” of the Cologne classification of music was known in Cracow through other earlier sources. Our conclusions regarding the inter-relations between the Cracow treatises of the first half of the 16th century must differ from Chybinski’s view which was based on the analysis of the Cracow mensural treatises. He did not find common elements in the individual treatises A. Chybiński Teoria menzuralna to polskiej literaturze muzycznej. Kraków 1911, s. 8. . Yet there are very many shared elements in the field of “musica plana”. Five of the seven treatises examined here — the treatise Anonym Ossol. 2297/I, Anonym BJ 2616, the two Opuscula by Sebastian of Felsztyn and Hortulus musices by Marek of Plock — reveal clear textual convergences. The shared elements are: Two of the elements of classification and the exposition of the subject of “modi” seem particularly important because they have no models outside the Cracow circle. Although some of the details, like the identification of “musica humana” with “musica vocalis” and the introduction for the term “musica practica” of the Augustan definition “musica est bene modulandi scientia”, also appear in texts put out by circles outside Cracow, the classification of music based on the scheme is certainly an original concept of the Cracow theorists. It expresses the same tendency as that represented by the division of music into “naturalis” and “artificialis” made by Adam of Fulda, a tendency the purpose of which was to concentrate the study of music on tonal phenomena. The transformation of that division into the juxtaposition “musica theorica — practica”, as represented by the classifications based on the formulas introduced by Cochlaeus and Burchard, gave priority to problems of a purely practical nature — “ars canendi” to which “ars componendi” was soon added, both embraced by the term “musica poetica”. Questions related to “musica theorica” were thus separated from “ars canendi”. This was reflected in the subjects taken up by the Cologne treatises where numerical proportions and measurements on the monochord are usually omitted K. W. Niemöller, op. cit., s. 261-262. . In the Cologne classification the central problem of the study of music is “musica practica ”. Meanwhile, the Cracow theorists — Anonym Ossol. 2297/I, Anonym BJ 2516 and Sebastian of Felsztyn, although they were moving in the same direction, had evolved a somewhat different concept. They took for their central problem not “musica practica” as opposed to “theorica” but “musica humana” to which “musica speculativa” was subordinated. “Musica speculativa” is taken to represent a strictly mathematical discipline with numerical proportions as its subject, deprived of the cosmological substance which was ascribed solely to “musica mundana”. “Musica humana”, defined at times as “quae vocem humana requirit et cantare artificialiter docet”, is held to be virtually identical with “ars canendi”. The idea of “musica speculativa” as one of the elements of “ars canendi” is reflected in the problems taken up in the treatises of Sebastian of Felsztyn and even more of Anonym BJ 2626, who devoted a good deal of attention to numerical proportion and measurements on the monochord. The textbooks thus seem to objectify the Gaffurian idea of the unity of theory and practice (the Gaffurian “musicus adaequatus” is both “practicus” and “speculativus” but not “theoricus”). Closely related to this treatment of “musica speculativa” is the Cracow concept of the theory of intervals: “modi” are linked with measures based on numerical proportions both by definition and etymology; the numerical proportion is the criterion of their division into “perfecti” and “imperfecti”. In their treatises Cochlaeus and Burchard examine intervals exclusively in practical terms. Cochlaeus uses the term “intervallum” to designate “the distance between high and low notes” thus directly invoking aural experience Johannes Cochlaeus Tetrachordum musices. Nurnbergae 1514, k. A4v. ; Burchard explains “modus” as the distance between two “voces” — solmizational syllables Udalricus Burchard Hortulus musicae practicae. Lipsiae 1518, k. B4r. . Anonym Ossol. 2297/I and Anonym BJ 2616 for their part define “modus” as a “proportionata” distance; Marek of Plock also subscribed to that view even though he proved to be an advocate of the Cologne classification of music. Despite the precedence given to “musica speculativa”, the Cracow theorists did not neglect the question of ”musica practica”. Furthermore, they examined the problems of solmization in greater detail perhaps than the Cologne theorists, illustrating individual rules with examples, something Burchard failed to do. The hexachordal system has been presented in the context of the tendences then in force whose purpose was to simplify mutations which were needed in the performance of mensural compositions. Marek of Plock in his treatment of “cantus” as a kind of “mode” and of “cantus naturalis” as a “mixtus”, hence as a secondary category to “durum” and “molle” (“cantus” therefore becomes virtually the equivalent of “scala dura” and “scala mollis”), foreshandows Sebald Heyden’s ostensibly dualistic concept of “cantus”. Are the classification of music and the concept of “musica speculativa” elements that impart a certain distinctive quality to the expositions of the three Cracow theorists, so relating them to the earlier held view in Cracow’s university circles ? Because of the negligible progress made in the study of 15th century music in Poland, it is possible to give only a hypothetical answer that by no means exhausts the problem in any way. We may base our conclusions only on observations made earlier. 1. The tendency to concentrate on tonal phenomena in the study of music was reflected by the classification of music made by Anonym BJ 568: the author of the introduction to the treatise Musica speculativa by Johannes de Muris regarded “musica mundana” as a domain of metaphysics, and “musica humana” as a domain of physics. This left the musicians with only “musica vocalis sive instrumentilis”. The Anonym BJ 568 manuscript, part of which was produced in Braunschweig about the year 1460 (the text discussed here quite probably belongs to this part) and part in Cracow about 1490, belonged to Leonard of Dobczyce, a lecturer in mathematical disciplines who was active at the Jagiellonian University toward the end of the 15th century; it may be assumed that it served as material for lectures on Arismetrica cum musica. 2. The original formula underlying the interpretation of “musica humana = quae vocem humana requirit” may have been the statement repeated after Izydor by Anonym BJ 1927 that “musica quae est in homine, vox appellatur”. The manuscript marked BJ 1927 remained in Cracow: the text dealt with here may have been a copy of Tractatus de simplici cantus produced in Prague in the early 15th century. The Prague copyist of the text was Stanislaw of Gniezno; the Cracow copy was made in 1448 by an unidentified copyist whose initials are N.P. de C. The copy was most probably made for teaching purposes. 3. The concept “musica speculativa” is clearly related to the problems taken up in the treatise Musica speculativa by Johannes de Muris, a standard text for lectures in music at the Jagiellonian University in the 15th and 16th centuries. Sebastian of Felsztyn pointed out this relationship. The formula for the definition of “musica speculativa” used by the three Cracow authors — Anonym Ossol. 2297/I, Anonym BJ 2616 and Sebastian of Felsztyn — comes very close to the definition given by Anonym BJ 1927. The texts listed above belong to the “Cracow tradition”. Actually the “Cracow tradition” is founded in musical “Latinitas” rooted “apud Graecos” and “apud Hebraeos”. It was also represented by the Cracow authors of the first half of the 16th century who also called themselves its “imitatores” and “sequaces”. They quoted the “inventors” and borrowed freely from all manner of “opusculi”, “rudimenti” and “musica”. They quoted Boethius, Augustyn, Izydor, Johannes de Muris, Guidon whom they knew only at “second hand”; they copied principally from the compilations made by Wollick, Cochlaeus, Burchard and Ornitoparch without attribution with one exception, namely the “princeps inter musicos aetate nostra”, as he was called in Cracow Jerzy Liban, op. cit., k. F3r: „Franchinus, qui aetate nostra inter musicos facile princeps extitit”. , Franchinus Gaffurius.
- Dostawca treści:
- Biblioteka Nauki
Książka